On January 8th, the United Kingdom nearly faced a blackout. David Rose notes that the “margin between electricity demand and available supply became so narrow that if a fault had caused a single, relatively small power station to “trip” out of the system, as two quite big ones did at other times that day, there would have been a shortfall.” Naturally, due to the winter conditions in the UK, solar production was near zero, and energy production from wind did not come close to meeting demand. Thankfully, a blackout did not occur, but naturally, coming this close to one should raise questions about the reliability of “renewables.” After all, In 2023, 51% of the UK’s energy came from so-called “renewable” sources. This also doesn’t mention that just a few short months ago, the UK shut down its last coal-burning power plant, becoming the first G7 nation to fully eliminate coal from its energy portfolio. Of course, this transition is to meet net-zero goals, not because of the unprofitability of such an energy source.
The transition from traditionally reliable energy sources has occurred in other European countries, too. For example, Germany has also made major changes to their energy production. With the government’s desire to divest from Russian gas, the German state also, in recent years, made the decision to shut down nuclear energy plants in its Energiewende. Anti-nuclear green energy movements in Germany were a primary reason for the German state to shut down nuclear energy plants. Of course, this only intensified after the Fukushima Disaster. With this, the German government went ahead with its energy transition, and by 2023, all of Germany’s nuclear plants were decommissioned. Ironically, had the State not shut down its last nuclear plants, more than four-and-a-half times the amount of carbon emissions could have not been released. The lesson: when politics drives our energy decision-making, energy becomes more expensive and less reliable, and we fail to meet our environmental goals.
Add to this Germany’s commitment to low-emission standards and you have the recipe for a major breakdown between German consumers’ demand for energy and the actual supply of energy. In short, Germany’s energy needs will not be met unless major decisions are altered. Sadly, this story can be said for many more European countries.
While the energy situation in Europe is frightening, the same process is starting to unfold across the United States. Net-zero mandates and politicians’ commitments to “fight” climate change are leading the energy future of the United States into darkness. This transition from inexpensive and reliable energy to costly, unreliable energy is simply energy suicide.
One region of the country that appears to be actively pursuing such destruction is the Midwest. In a report from the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, Joshua Antonini and Jason Hayes analyze the energy plans and consumption of seven Midwest states. Through net-zero mandates, of which “three [states] have net-zero mandates by law and one has net-zero mandates through regulation,” the Midwest is attempting to transition a large percentage of the grid to wind and solar. It also must be noted that “of the 38 major investor-owned utilities spanning the Great Lakes region, 32 are pledged to net-zero by 2050 or sooner.” Essentially, a majority of the Midwest will be using so-called “carbon-free” or “eco-friendly” forms of energy production.
There is one major problem with this, though. Wind and solar energy are simply not reliable enough to run an entire grid. While nameplate capacity increases through 2042, accredited capacity, the actual amount of energy generated that can be relied upon, substantially decreases. As the authors write, “only one of the MISO zones in the Great Lakes region is expected to have enough capacity to meet even the most conservative projection of future demand load in 2027, and none are by 2032.”
What does this mean for the Midwest? Blackouts and energy shortages. While energy may seem like a given, it is not. Think of any good that you use or consume daily. A car, bus, train, phone or laptop you are using to read this, even with the food you eat, energy is an input into its production. When energy gets more expensive and unreliable, your lights and AC do not work, and goods either won’t be produced or will become more expensive. Everything in modern life that sustains us, from the most basic comforts to literal lifesaving technologies, requires energy. If you think energy is trivial, look no further than 246 dead from the 2021 Texas freeze.
There are few better photos that show the relationship between civilization and energy than this famous image of North and South Korea at night. In the North, energy is limited, with a little over 50% of the country having access to electricity. In the South, however, virtually 100% of the population has access to energy. In North Korea, virtually the only city with electricity is Pyongyang, the political capital. South Korea, on the other hand, has electricity in every city from Seoul to Busan with every village in between. Whereas in the North, politics dictates energy usage, commerce dictates energy usage in the South. Using GDP per capita as a measure of wealth, North Koreans earn around $1,700 per year, while South Koreans earn approximately $50,000 per year. Modern civilization is simply not possible without energy.
What will the West’s energy future look like? Only time will tell, but as countries switch from reliable, cheap energy to undependable and expensive energy, a future with less energy and less dynamism is certainly possible.
